Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Role of Existing Insurance Trusts in Divorce
Life insurance is a common issue addressed in a substantial proportion of divorces. For many clients, especially those of greater economic means, existing insurance coverage is owned by irrevocable life insurance trusts ('ILIT'). Existing ILIT arrangements too often receive inadequate attention during the course of a divorce as a result of the focus on other more significant issues, or the presumption that since the ILIT is 'irrevocable,' it cannot be tailored to address the post-divorce insurance needs. This can be a considerable mistake. In many cases, because it is assumed that an existing ILIT cannot be changed, the insurance requirements resulting from the divorce are separately addressed in a property settlement agreement ('PSA').
For example, a husband may have funded an insurance trust ten years previously, when the marriage was solid, and the trust may have purchased insurance on his life. Rather than addressing how that pre-existing ILIT can be dealt with, in most cases the PSA will simply mandate new minimum insurance requirements that the ex-husband has to provide for the ex-wife and children. In many cases, better, or less costly coverage can be obtained through modifications of the existing insurance trust. In some cases, due to health or other factors, it becomes essential to deal with the existing insurance trust.
To address existing ILITs in the context of a divorce, there are five steps that practitioners must take; the fifth will appear in the next issue of The Matrimonial Strategist.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.